1 / 30

A Brief History of Problem Solving

A Brief History of Problem Solving. Why It Matters!. Brian Gaunt, Ph.D. & Clark Dorman, Ed.S . Agenda. Introductions Why history of PS matters Overview of context 1890-1970 Behavioral Consultation as “anchor” Cross-walk: BC steps & Various “Technology” Looking Ahead…. Guess the Year.

asher
Télécharger la présentation

A Brief History of Problem Solving

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Brief History of Problem Solving Why It Matters! Brian Gaunt, Ph.D. & Clark Dorman, Ed.S.

  2. Agenda • Introductions • Why history of PS matters • Overview of context 1890-1970 • Behavioral Consultation as “anchor” • Cross-walk: BC steps & Various “Technology” • Looking Ahead…

  3. Guess the Year • “Differences in conceptions of the problem-solving process have sharply divided psychologists.” • …requires defining the problem, observing and collecting data, formulating a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and drawing and applying a conclusion.

  4. Why Knowledge of PS History Matters • Rapid scale up for MTSS…CCSS…PBiS… • NCLB: Implement EBPs – PS @ EBP. • Integrating while implementing (ex. PBS, RtI, CCSS) • Barrier: different “name-brand” models of PS.

  5. So many models… • 12 steps • Goodwin & Coates, 1976 • 7 steps • Meyers, 1973; Curtis& Meyers, 1989 • 6 steps • Corrigan & Kaufman, 1966 • 5 steps • Deno, 1989; 2005; Todd et al., 2011 • 4 steps • Bergan, 1977; Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990 • NASDSE, 2006

  6. NASDSE, 2006 Define the Problem Is there a problem? What is it? Analyze Why is it happening? Evaluate Did our plan work? Develop a Plan What shall we do about it?

  7. 4-Step Problem Solving Model • Original BC Model Design: Bergan (1970; 1977) • Problem Identification • Problem Analysis • Plan Implementation • Plan Evaluation • Model Variations : Collaborative Cons.; Conjoint-Beh Cons.; Ecobehavioral Cons.; Instructional Cons., Organizational Cons; Systems Cons.

  8. Evidence-base…almost there... Beh. Consult. Research • Mannino & Shore, 1975 • Bergan & Tombari, 1975 • Bergan & Tombari, 1976 • Medway, 1979 • Medway, 1982 • Albert, 1983 • Medway & Updyke, 1985 • Gresham & Kendall, 1987 • West & Idol, 1987 • Fuchs et al., 1992 • MacLeod et al., 2001 • Lewis & Newcommer, 2002 • Burns & Symington, 2002 • Guli, 2005 Component Analyses of PS • Bergan & Tombari, 1976 • Fuchs & Fuchs, 1989 • Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bahr, 1990 • Fuchs, et al., 1996 • Flugum & Reshly, 1994 • Kovaleski, et al., 1999 • Telzrow, et al., 2000 • Burns, et al., 2008 • Todd, et al., 2011 • Ruby, et al., 2011

  9. Ruby, et al., 2011 • “Although sufficient philosophical and empirical evidence supports the validityof the problem solving team theoretical construct (see Burns, Vanderwood, & Ruby, 2005) and efficacywithin well controlled university-based studies (Burns & Symington, 2002), implementation inconsistencies have prevented widespread effectiveness (Burns et al., 2005).” (Pg. 234)

  10. Ruby, et al., 2011 • “It is clear from our two studies that training, whether it is the typical district model…or more intensive support provided by university faculty, is not sufficient in settings that have not created a culture of problem solving.” (Pg. 251)

  11. In the Beginning…1890-*1970 • Experimental Analysis of Behavior/Beh. Analysis • (Dewey, 1896; Thorndike, 1905; Watson, 1913; Pavlov, 1927; Skinner, 1938; Skinner, 1953; Bijou, 1955,1957; Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968; Goldfried & Pomeranz, 1968). • Research on Problem Solving (“sets”/S-R/S-R-S) • (Dewey, 1933; Rees & Israel, 1935; Bloom & Broader, 1950; Newell et al., 1958; Duncan, 1959; Miller et al., 1960;Parnes, 1967; Johnson et al., 1968; Crutchfield, 1969; D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971). • Consultation practice (MH/BC/Org) • (Caplan, 1950; Perkins, 1953; Sarason, et al., 1960; Michael & Meyerson, 1962; Cutler & McNeil, 1964; Bennis, 1965; Bergan & Caldwell, 1967; Englemann, 1967; Bergan, 1970; Reschly, 1976 [review]) • Professional Identity of School Psychology • (Thayer Conf, 1954; APA Div 16, 1958; Perkins, 1963; Tindal, 1964; Hyman, 1967; Bardon, 1968; Reschly, 1976 [review]) • Federal Policy Towards Education Equality & Access Foundation for the Blind & American Federation of the Physically Handicapped (1940s); National Association for Retarded Citizens (1950); National Adoption of Special Education Programs (1960s); Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) & Amendment (1969); Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendment 1969); Handicapped Children’s Early Education Assistance Act (1968)

  12. Cronbach 1957 & 1975 • 1950’s • Thayer Conference (1954) – Define School Psych Role • Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684. • Sought to align/integrate the to “disciplines” of psychology • APA Division 16 Created (1958) • 1970’s • PL94-142 (1975) – Special Education is mandated • Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116-127. • Glass, G. V., Willson, V. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1975). Design and analysis of time-series experiments. Boulder, Col.: University of Colorado Press.

  13. Overview of Contributing Literatures1970 - Present • Exp Analysis of Behavior/Behavior Analysis • Behavior Therapy/Behavioral Assessment • Instructional Hierarchy/Task Analysis • Consultation • Pre-referral/PS Teams • Curriculum-based Measurement • Data Utilization • Functional Assessment/Brief Experimental Analysis • Treatment Integrity/Implementation Science

  14. Behavioral Assessment • Several concepts, methods, and purposes can be identified with behavioral assessment (Kratochwill& Sheridan, 1990): • View human behavior (feelings, thoughts, and behaviors) as they occur in specific situations rather than manifestations of underlying personality. • Behavioral assessments should be empirically based • Role of situational influences on behavior. • Behavior, cognitions, and affect as direct targets of assessment rather than signs of underlying cause. • Idiographic and individualized

  15. Behavioral Assessment • By nature are systems oriented • Emphasis on contemporaneous controlling variables rather than historical causes • Emphasis on instability of behavior over time • Collection of data that are relevant for treatment • Reliance on multi-method assessment strategies • Embrace low level inferences • Use of repeated measurement

  16. Evidence-based Problem Defining. • EAB/Behavior Analysis • Empirical evaluation of treatment (Bijou, 1970; Kazdin& Hersen, 1980) • Treatment utility of assessments (Hayes et al., 1987) • Target Selection/Guidelines (Mash & Terdal, 1981; Nelson & Hayes, 1979)

  17. Evidence-based Problem Defining • BC Consultation/CBM: Notable Research • Bergan & Tombari (1976): • PID – Plan Imp (.776); Plan Imp – Plan Solution (.977) • Flugum & Reschly (1994): • Typical plans have no behavioral definition • Telzrow et al., (2000); • Clearly identified goal & Data on Student RtI were significant

  18. Evidence-based Problem analysis • Treatment Utility of Assessment (Hayes et al., 1987) • Instructional Hierarchy (Haring & Eaton, 1978; Ardoin & Daly, 2007; Martins & Eckert, 2007) • Functional Analysis (Carr, 1977; Iwata et al., 1982; Carr & Durand, 1985; Lentz & Shapiro, 1986; Daly et al., 1997; Daly, et al., 1999; Dixon et al., 2012) • Eco-Behavioral approach to generating hypothesis (Gallessich, 1973; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Ysseldyke & Christenson, 1987)

  19. Evidence-based Problem analysis • Brief Exp. Analysis (Derby et al., 1992; Daly & Martins, 1994; Duhon et al., 2004; Martens & Gertz, 2009) • Notable Research: • Telzrow et al., (2000): within-child hypotheses is typical • Twernbold et al., (1996): Function vs. “Empiric” (Behavior) • Beavers et al., (2004): Function vs. “Empiric” (Reading) • “Empiric” = standard protocol

  20. Evidence-based Plan Design & Implement. • Treatment Plan Design • Treatment acceptability (Kazdin, 1981; Easton & Erchul, 2011; Eckert & Hintz, 2000; Nastasi & Truscott, 2000). • Stakeholder participation in planning (Elliott et al., 1991; Nastasi & Truscott, 2000). • Availability of relevant evidence-based knowledge(Gresham, 2004) • Match: problem severity & intervention intensity (Gresham, 2004)

  21. Evidence-based Plan Design & Implement. • Treatment Implementation Monitoring • Performance feedback/Coaching (Codding et al., 2005; Duhon et al., 2009; Mortenson & Witt, 1998; Noell et al., 2002) • Multiple sources, types, and dimensions (Sanetti & Fallon, 2011) • Science is still emerging (Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009; Sheridan et al., 2005)

  22. Evidence-based Plan Design & Implement. • Organizational Capacity • Research to practice gap (Detrich & Lewis, 2013; Forman et al., 2005) • Comprehensive Data “Systems” (e.g.,Firestone & Gonzales, 2007; Honig & Venkateswaren, 2012;Ikemoto & Marsh, 2007; Kerr et al., 2006; Wayman, 2005; Wayman & Stringfield, 2006)

  23. Evidence-based Treatment Evaluation • Purpose: • Cronbach (1975) – recants ATI approach in favor of monitoring response to treatment. • Framework for determination of LD (Heller, Holtzman, and Messick, 1982). • EBI selection is insufficient; Experimentally observe effect on target student(s) (Gresham, 2004; Rilley-Tillman et al. 2012)

  24. Evidence-based Treatment Evaluation • Impact on Educator Behavior (e.g., instruction) • CBM – progress monitoring (Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984; Wesson et al., 1984) • Formative Assessment (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986) • Formative evaluation vs. Progress monitoring (Fuchs et al., 2003; Burns, 2008) • Procedures and “data” • Student response data (Fuchs, L. S., 2003) • Implementation fidelity data (Noell & Gansle, 2006)

  25. Developing Decision Rules

  26. Re-Defining “Data System” • Implications across steps, tiers & levels of education • Tech alone is insufficent(need aligned roles/respon.) • With or without PS, barriers exist in “using data for decision-making”: • Different conceptions about “data” (Coburn & Talbert; 2006). • Timely Access (Lachat & Smith, 2005) • Lack of appropriate data (Coburn & Talbert, 2006; Kerr et al., 2006; Protheroe, 2001) • Limited Tech (Chen et al., 2005) • Inefficient or incorrect entry and mgmt(Lachat & Smith, 2005) • Lack of Educator Skills (Cizek, 2000)

  27. In Summary… • A search for the historical influences on Problem-Solving research and practice requires review of: • Philosophy/Epistemology & Psychology • Psychology & Behaviorism • Psychology & School Psychology • School Psychology & Behavior Therapy, Systems Change, Education, Policy/Politics.

  28. In Summary… • “Problem solving as a service delivery approach is atheoretical. Interventions from different perspectives are neither accepted nor rejected on theoretical grounds. The approach is pragmatic.” Reschly, 2004 • “Thinking, problem solving, concept formation, and decision-making are important behavioral functions which impinge upon nearly every other area of psychology.” Gagne’, 1959

  29. Looking Forward… • Continue movement from “correlational” education to “experimental” education as foundation (Reschly, 2004) • MTSS @ org. framework to support stronger empiricism in education • Cost-Benefit/Situational research on problem solving components (e.g., Noell & Gresham, 1993; Beavers et al., 2004). • Reconcile FBA/BIP and RtI Problem Solving processes • “academic problems” and “behavior problems” as false dichotomy; explore common “critical” components. • Functional view of teacher’s use of data. • Ecological view of “data systems”

More Related